Quotes of the day

posted at 10:18 pm on October 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

Following the Democratic National Convention last month, the Obama campaign felt it was on a roll. So confident was the President that on the Saturday night after his Charlotte acceptance speech, he did something extremely rare: he talked to the thirty or so members of the traveling press that follow him everywhere. That evening in Florida, he made a surprise appearance at an off-the-record drinking session with media and campaign staff. The late night charm outreach at the Orlando hotel bar was a clearly tactical move to get the press on his side during the final stretch. But it was also an indication about just how confident Obama felt — and how confident his team was in him.

“They wouldn’t have brought him out unless he was feeling really good,” one journalist who attended the event would say later…

The day after the debate, according to multiple campaign sources, the campaign was “overtired” and “rattled.” It was clear to even the most hardened veterans that it was one of the worst moments for Team Obama, the first full blown crisis.

***

Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion…

Look: I’m trying to rally some morale, but I’ve never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week – throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does. How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement?…

On the other hand, a continued series of events like last week’s debate really might change the narrative of the race. And here is the bad news for Democrats: Their best shot has already come and gone. The debates will anchor the campaign narrative from here on out, and the three debates that follow all offer less favorable terrain for them to press their case…

The next debate is a town-hall meeting. Obama’s campaign is talking up its plan to roll out a new, tougher Obama who will challenge Romney’s slick evasions. But a town-hall meeting is a whole different animal. In a one-on-one debate, you can fillet your opponent. A town-hall meeting consists of undecided voters pressing the candidates for answers. The focus of the event is on answering the questions of the voters. Using their questions to assail your opponent is bad form — indeed, the Regular Voters who ask the questions, and serve as proxies for the public, can be counted on to implore the candidates to stop attacking each other so much. Romney will use the town hall to proclaim his deep and abiding concern for all of America, and Obama will have little chance to disprove it.

***

And that really points to what must be the deepest reason for the Democrats’ strange response to the debate. The president can’t run on his record, and he isn’t proposing a second term agenda. All he has to run on is the caricature of Mitt Romney that his campaign, his surrogates, and liberal opinion makers in the press have been fashioning for a year. Their goal has been to prevent the election from becoming a referendum on the incumbent, which the Romney campaign had clearly hoped it could be, and to make it not even a choice election but a referendum on the challenger. Obama seemed to have a remarkable degree of success with this approach, but the debate represented Romney’s response: Rather than continue to insist that the election should simply be a referendum on Obama, Romney effectively presented a case for seeing it as a choice between two agendas, and presented his own proposals and vision in his own terms. The Obama campaign had been able to paint Romney in scary colors for months because Romney had declined to describe himself and his agenda much. Now that he’s finally running for president, the Democrats have a problem.

But if that’s their predicament, then surely their panicked response of the last few days is only making things worse. They can’t really expect people to treat them as a trusted source about Romney’s agenda and ignore Romney himself. But if they’ve lost control of the Romney story—even if they merely fight it to a draw—they don’t have much of a case to make for themselves. The public is unhappy with the economy and the direction of the country, and Obama is not proposing to do anything differently if he is given another four years.

So what do they do next? Continue to insist that Romney’s agenda is what they say it is and not what Romney himself is plainly promising voters? Try more aggressive personal attacks against Romney? Defend the Obama record? Not exactly a wealth of great options.

***

But perhaps it should be looked at in a different way: Obama did not lose so much as Romney won. A highly skilled, albeit vastly underrated, candidate showed what he was really made of on Thursday…

He won the GOP nomination relatively early (considering how frontloading the primaries was scaled back this cycle) and bloodlessly. Sure, it was messy at times, but he clearly has united the Republican party around him. Many of his once-staunchest opponents in the party – both high profile commentators and grassroots voters alike – are now counted among his strongest allies.

He did so without having to adopt political opinions that alienated him from the middle of the electorate, or his base. In fact, his voting coalition was the center of the GOP electorate – not too far to the left, nor too far to the right…

Hannity noted that they’re “desperate” and panicked. Cadell agreed, pointing to poll numbers shifting in Romney’s favor. It’s the biggest debate victory since 1980, he said. And the Romney campaign should’ve used ads to tout that victory.

“The election is not over,” he said, noting that Obama has not yet been defeated. Coulter disagreed. Romney is going to win, she said, and partly because that was the most-watched debate since 1980, and “that was the first time in the last 100 years Republicans took out an incumbent.”

Imagine what they will be like on November 7th! I can’t wait. I saw the comment by Flora Duh about Obama supporters rioting if Romney wins. Do they think that will make everyone say, well, then, let’s just let Obama have it, we wouldn’t want anyone to RIOT!

Quite a funeral atmosphere on Moaning Schmoe. Comparing the Romney surge to the Kerry exit polling. Yeah, right, morons. The media couldn’t push their candidate then and they can’t push their candidate now.

But perhaps it should be looked at in a different way: Obama did not lose so much as Romney won. A highly skilled, albeit vastly underrated, candidate showed what he was really made of on Thursday…

This is an absurd idea. Obama lost ground at a critical time and so dramatically there wasn’t even any point trying to spin the idea that the debate was “a draw.” Apparently only a handful of professional staffers showed up in the spin room to gush over Obama’s performance. Not one elected Democrat was going to go out there and attach themselves to the stench of Obama’s performance. By Thursday morning the only one still in cheerleader mode was Stephanie Cutter- a documented liar.

It is amazing that the same blogosphere that was dominated by handwringing and whining — remember when the polls were hopelessly biased against Romney? — have now done a 180 and declared the election almost over.

Romney’s still a snake oil salesman peddling the same economic policy that got us into this mess, and Obama still has money, a campaign organization and two more debates.

We’re not monolithic like liberals and no great movement here tried to concoct a meme that the polls were rigged. Most just called to watch the trends and not lose it over one or two polls.

How about the debate excuse by Gore though? Really, the prez can’t debate above 5K. We should enact a law that forbids him from making important national decisions on AF1 which is … normally presuurized in between 8-10K.

I don’t want a liberal troll to scold me on being rational and realistic.

Romney’s still a snake oil salesman peddling the same economic policy that got us into this mess, and Obama still has money, a campaign organization and two more debates.

The fat lady has not yet taken the stage.

urban elitist on October 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM

You people are really beyond belief. You can’t sell your candidate so you call your opponent (enemy in Obamaworld) a liar. Where are the new ideas and discussion of what the rat-eared coward wants to do with a second term? Where is the proud record on which he thinks he deserves a second term. Instead all I hear is a bunch of crybabies calling Romney a liar. Hardly a decent and honorable way to run a campaign but, then again, any moron who can support a candidate who actually claims his opponent causes cancer is not honorable to begin with.

In the meantime, Romney is out there kicking things into high gear. He has the passion and drive while your guy just attends fundraisers and spews lies.

Well, if he believes that he can completely separate the sub-prime mortgage scam and a liberal 06 Congress and failed obama economic policies from the current mess, he can obviously convince himself of anything.

different tune the morning joe crew is singing today. now the election “was always going to be close”. before the debates, it was going to be a cake walk for the bamster.

renalin on October 9, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Yeah, the week before the debate the attitude was that it was all but over. All hail the rat-eared monarch! Now they are all in crisis mode trying to find something positive out of momentum that clearly is going Mitt Romney’s way.

How about the debate excuse by Gore though? Really, the prez can’t debate above 5K. We should enact a law that forbids him from making important national decisions on AF1 which is … normally presuurized in between 8-10K.

Well, I never like Al anyway — my theory is that Obama has a champagne hangover.

I don’t want a liberal troll to scold me on being rational and realistic.

Please!

hawkdriver on October 9, 2012 at 7:47 AM

I’m just cautioning against irrational exuberance.

You people are really beyond belief. You can’t sell your candidate so you call your opponent (enemy in Obamaworld) a liar. Where are the new ideas and discussion of what the rat-eared coward wants to do with a second term? Where is the proud record on which he thinks he deserves a second term. Instead all I hear is a bunch of crybabies calling Romney a liar. Hardly a decent and honorable way to run a campaign but, then again, any moron who can support a candidate who actually claims his opponent causes cancer is not honorable to begin with.

In the meantime, Romney is out there kicking things into high gear. He has the passion and drive while your guy just attends fundraisers and spews lies.

Happy Nomad on October 9, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Well, if he’d stop lying about his tax cut — if he actually thinks that a Republican House is going to close $5 trillion worth of loopholes, he’s too stupid president — and the Medicare budget, we’ll stop calling him a liar.

Well, if he believes that he can completely separate the sub-prime mortgage scam and a liberal 06 Congress and failed obama economic policies from the current mess, he can obviously convince himself of anything.

hawkdriver on October 9, 2012 at 7:59 AM

he sub-prime mortgage crises grew and explodes while Republicans controlled the both ouses of Congress and the White House. Sorry, but the Democratic class of ’06 has not been sworn in when the bubble burst.

Even the 0bama campaign had to admit that they pulled that number out of their rear, no organization but the campaign will make that claim and those that have been referenced by the campaign over that claim are saying its bogus. yet, you cling to it.

That’s the problem with y’all libs. Y’all will cling to any stupid claim that helps your side.

he sub-prime mortgage crises grew and explodes while Republicans controlled the both ouses of Congress and the White House. Sorry, but the Democratic class of ’06 has not been sworn in when the bubble burst.

it was one of mitts multiple put downs homey in the last debate. your emperor be naked now. very tiny package.

our side is laughing.

renalin on October 9, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I realize that, moron, although itlong predates Mittens’ use of it. I bleieve iot was DP Moynihan who is credited with its first use.

Even the 0bama campaign had to admit that they pulled that number out of their rear, no organization but the campaign will make that claim and those that have been referenced by the campaign over that claim are saying its bogus. yet, you cling to it.

That’s the problem with y’all libs. Y’all will cling to any stupid claim that helps your side.

cozmo on October 9, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Nope. Came from an academic study.

But, why doesn’t the Romney campaign tell us the nominal cost of the raet reduction, if Obama is wrong?

But, why doesn’t the Romney campaign tell us the nominal cost of the raet reduction, if Obama is wrong?

Oh — and what loopholes they’ll close.

urban elitist on October 9, 2012 at 8:22 AM

I’m curious.
Please tell me how you think the socialism you all stand for works at the Federal Level when one reads the Constitution of the United States.
How do you justify the power grab over the states & their sovereignty?
What about that 10th Amendment?
Bcs, friend, this is what it all comes down to.
Why do you consider a huge encroaching centralized government a good idea, when that is the exact opposite of what our Founders fought for?

Acually, jackwagon, I’m 53, a VP of Mktg for a 100+ employee corporation, have written over 925 Blogs, and am followed on Twitter by the likes of thehill.comm the House of Representatives, and the Senate Republicans.

The “academic study” that Obama has cherry picked and spun to come up with the lie that Romney is going to cut taxes by $5 trillion is out of Princeton and the economist is irritated that Obama is lying about what the study said. The Left and Obama in particular are pathological liars and get away with it because the far left believes that any means to their socialist ends is appropriate. Hell, they thought 250 million deaths in the 20th century were fine if it moved forward the cause of leftism.http://www.bizpacreview.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=News.details&ArticleId=782499&returnTo=News

Nope. Came from an academic study.
urban elitist on October 9, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Excuse me, and what study would that be? The Princeton Univ Prof Harvey Rosen’s, who got disgusted by the obama campaign spin on his paper and came out saying that they misrepresented his study on Romney’s plan. that study??? Here’s (see below) what the man himself had to say. You people have tonnes of chutzpah and 0 command of the facts, might be nice to live in your alternate reality, bubbly or not.

‘I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.’

I don’t understand how anyone can vote for another four years of unbridled spending. The only place The Won wants to cut spending, is the area he is constitutionally responsible to keep strong and probably employs the most people. Crazy world.

I don’t understand how anyone can vote for another four years of unbridled spending. The only place The Won wants to cut spending, is the area he is constitutionally responsible to keep strong and probably employs the most people. Crazy world.

Cindy Munford on October 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM

That’s what watching too much kardashians and equally inept reality shows does to people :)…why use their brain and make the effort to inform themselves when the bubble they live in does not require it (not before it is too late anyways)…

Well, if he believes that he can completely separate the sub-prime mortgage scam and a liberal 06 Congress and failed obama economic policies from the current mess, he can obviously convince himself of anything.
hawkdriver on October 9, 2012 at 7:59 AM
he sub-prime mortgage crises grew and explodes while Republicans controlled the both ouses of Congress and the White House. Sorry, but the Democratic class of ’06 has not been sworn in when the bubble burst.
You’re not entitles to your own facts, as someone said recently.
urban elitist on October 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM

This is standard tactic with these liars. Liberals have spent 60 years building their Progressive infrastructure infecting every aspect of our lives and then blame the failures on Republicans if they don’t counteract their effects in one legislative session.

he sub-prime mortgage crises grew and explodes while Republicans controlled the both ouses of Congress and the White House. Sorry, but the Democratic class of ’06 has not been sworn in when the bubble burst.
You’re not entitles to your own facts, as someone said recently.
urban elitist on October 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Speaking of “not entitles [sic] to your own facts”:

That “subprime crises” BEGAN with Bill Clinton’s Community Reinvestment Act or whatever theheck it was called.

And it was then hyped, promoted and booted by no less than beginning State Senator, Barack Obama as leverage used to threaten mortgage lenders with lawsuits and public protests to embarrass them “if” they did not begin issuing mortgages NOT based on credit worthiness BUT SKIN COLOR (“race”).

Those lenders responded by issuing those subprime loans (based upon race and not based upon credit worthiness) and being fiscal people, they then sold and resold those loans in order to make a profit on the PREDICTABLE defaults involved.

You can’t lend money and expect to be repaid when you lend the money to someone who does not have or doesn’t display the ability to repay the money. So you either engage in charity with a clear understanding of “hey, here’s the money you want, I don’t expect to be repaid” assigned to it, or, you lend money to a stranger and ask them to repay it but you are denied the possibility of establishing whether that “borrower” can repay your loan or will (which means, you lend without establishing credit worthiness of the borrower).

The govt. REQUIRED lenders to engage in those NON-CREDIT-WORTHINESS “loans”. The only ability for lenders to recoup their principle (what they’d loaned and what interest they themselves may have either accrued on that principle or the “cost” of lending money such as deflation of their principle over time, even without accruing interest, or both)…the only ability for lenders to recoup their principle was to RESELL THE LOAN to someone else.

Lenders were forced by govt. demand (Clinton) and threat (Obama) to engage in these ridiculous “loans” and then the house of cards folded after several years of these ongoing speculative/reselling of loans and the inevitable defaults byn the “lenders” who never had the ability or the will to repay the loans in the first place.

Always ignored.
I won’t pretend the Republicans are loads better than the Democrats.
But the differences are quite startling.
Where are the old Democrats, pre-1920, & the few that remained after fighting communism?
Where did these Democrats go?
I can respect them far more than the ones today.
It’s why I am having a hard time considering the Democrat vote for ND Gov, Ryan Taylor.
I know the guy, & he’s a cheesy politician, but he’s a ND Stockman’s member & I do respect him.
Problem is, I now am suspicious of anyone who wants to be identified with this Progressive party of death & destruction.

So, perhaps you don’t check back on older threads, but I did ask you a question earlier.
And it wasn’t too long after you posted something.
So I am just curious as to how you feel about the 10th Amendment & the Federal Govt assuming powers it has no right to assume.
Where do you stand on this?